Medical marijuana includes cookies, brownies, oils and tea rules Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that limiting medical consumption to dried marijuana infringes on liberty protections under the Charter of Rights.
Cannabis-infused peanut butter cookies are displayed for sale at a Weeds Glass and Gifts medical marijuana dispensary in downtown Vancouver, B.C.
OTTAWA—The Supreme Court of Canada says medical marijuana can include products other than dried pot, such as cannabis-infused cookies brownies, oils and tea.
The court has rejected an appeal by the federal government of a lower court ruling that medical marijuana users have a right to a range of products containing the drug.
In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled that limiting medical consumption to dried marijuana infringes on liberty protections under the Charter of Rights.
Current federal regulations stipulate that authorized users of physician-prescribed cannabis can only consume dried marijuana.
The case stems from the arrest in 2009 of Owen Smith, former head baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada, who was charged after police found more than 200 pot cookies and cannabis-infused olive oil and grapeseed oil in his Victoria apartment.
Smith was acquitted at trial and later won an appeal.
Article source Toronto Star
Ambrose ‘outraged’ by SCC’s marijuana ruling
Angela Mulholland, Staff writer
Health Minister Rona Ambrose says she is “outraged” by the Supreme Court of Canada decision that expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond dried leaves, to include cannabis oils, teas, brownies and other forms of the drug.
In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that users should not be restricted to only using the dried form of the drug. They said the current rules prevent people with a legitimate need for medical marijuana from choosing a method of ingestion that avoids the potential harms of smoking it.
But Ambrose says, despite recent court rulings in favour of the use of marijuana, her government maintains that cannabis has never been proven safe and effective as a medicine.
“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which requires rigorous safety reviews and clinical trials with scientific evidence,” she told reporters in Ottawa.
“So frankly, I’m outraged by the Supreme Court.”
She said Thursday’s decision, as well as prior court rulings that permit the use of medical marijuana, give Canadians the impression that the drug has been shown to be effective, when it has not.
“We have this message that normalizes a drug where there is no clear clinical evidence that it is, quote-unquote, a medicine,” she said, adding that never in Canada’s history has a drug become a medicine “because judges deemed it so.”
Currently, doctor-prescribed marijuana can only be offered in dried form; any other form could lead to charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Medical marijuana advocates argued that for many patients, including the elderly, digesting the cannabis extracts was the only reasonable method of ingestion.
The Supreme Court agreed that it was unreasonable to require users to smoke dried marijuana.
“Inhaling marihuana can present health risks and is less effective for some conditions than administration of cannabis derivatives,” the court said in its judgment.
The case began in 2009, with the arrest of Owen Smith, the former head baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada. He was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, after police found large amounts of cannabis-infused olive oil and cookies in his apartment.
Smith challenged those laws, arguing that medical marijuana users should have the right to consume marijuana in other ways than smoking. The court agreed and Smith was acquitted at trial.
Last summer, the B.C. Appeal Court upheld that decision, and gave the federal government a year to change the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations to remove the word “dried” from its definition of marijuana.
The federal government, which does not endorse the use of marijuana, decided to challenge the decision in Canada’s top court, where it contended there was not enough scientific evidence on the efficacy of “derivative cannabis products” such as baked goods, and argued that the Charter does not give medical marijuana users the right to obtain or produce drugs based on their subjective beliefs.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
“The evidence amply supports the trial judge’s conclusions on the benefits of alternative forms of marihuana treatment,” it said.
“…There are cases where alternative forms of cannabis will be ‘reasonably required’ for the treatment of serious illnesses. In our view, in those circumstances, the criminalization of access to the treatment in question infringes liberty and security of the person.”
Terry Roycroft of Medicinal Cannabis Resource Centre says the court decision is a significant one for medical marijuana users who didn’t like smoking the drug. He says, when marijuana is smoked, its effects last a couple of hours, but when ingested the effects can persist for six to eight hours.
“There’s much more medicine going in the body and you get much better results when you use an edible than when you use smoking,” he told CTV News Channel.
The decision is also significant for doctors who worried about how to prescribe smoking marijuana, Roycroft added.
“When we start creating edibles, there is the possibility and there is the mechanism to standardize the dose, which is exactly what physicians want,” he said.
Under the changed definition, marijuana can also be offered in the form of capsules, tinctures and ointments.
“The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, one of their biggest concerns is the lack of standardization. So this … will allow them to be more accepting of this,” he said.
Smith’s lawyer, Kirk Tousaw, says while he is gratified by the ruling, he notes that Canada has failed to create a working system to allow patients to access medical cannabis and protect licensed growers.
“The government really has to go back to the drawing board here, start listening to patients and the people who understand the difficulties that patients are dealing with every day, and come up with a system that really protects those patients from the imposition of the criminal law,” he told CTV News Channel from Vancouver.
Article source CTV News
Owen Smith CTV on The Supreme Court of Canada Marijuana Ruling
TV News Channel: ‘A fight against families’ Plantiff Owen Smith discusses the ruling and says that the SCOC ruling will benefit those who are not responding to conventional medication. The case began in 2009, with the arrest of Owen Smith, the former head baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada. He was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, after police found large amounts of cannabis-infused olive oil and cookies in his apartment.
Smith challenged those laws, arguing that medical marijuana users should have the right to consume marijuana in other ways than smoking. The court agreed and Smith was acquitted at trial. Last summer, the B.C. Appeal Court upheld that decision, and gave the federal government a year to change the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations to remove the word “dried” from its definition of marijuana.
The federal government, which does not endorse the use of marijuana, decided to challenge the decision in Canada’s top court, where it contended there was not enough scientific evidence on the efficacy of “derivative cannabis products” such as baked goods, and argued that the Charter does not give medical marijuana users the right to obtain or produce drugs based on their subjective beliefs. The Supreme Court disagreed. http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=633688
Post source Pot TV
Medical marijuana legal in all forms, Supreme Court rules
Health minister ‘outraged’ by ruling, vows to combat ‘normalization’ of pot
By Trinh Theresa Do, CBC News
Medical marijuana patients will now be able to consume marijuana — and not just smoke it — as well as use other extracts and derivatives, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.
The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form.
The country’s highest court found the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Restricting medical access to marijuana to a dried form has now been declared “null and void” — Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, will no longer be in effect.
The respondent in this case, Owen Smith, called it “a very emotional day.”
“I’m proud and really happy today for all those people who are going to benefit from this ruling,” he said at a press conference in Victoria, B.C.
The decision upholds earlier rulings by lower courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person’s right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.
Many users felt smoking it was even potentially harmful. However, methods such as brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking cannabis into brownies left patients vulnerable to being charged with possession and trafficking under the law.
According to evidence submitted to the trial judge, it came down to forcing a person to choose between a legal but inadequate treatment, and an illegal but more effective choice.
Federal health minister ‘outraged’
“It’s a positive — it’s a great thing for patients … and people who need extracts who can’t smoke their cannabis or don’t even want to in the first place,” said David-George Oldham, founder of The ARC, a consortium of cannabis patients, doctors, activists and chemists.
“Imagine smoking seven grams of cannabis when you’re having a migraine so bad that just moving your fingers is excruciating pain,” he said during a scrum outside the Supreme Court.
“Taking a [cannabis] pill is a lot more sensible and having pills stocked in my cupboard makes a lot more sense than having just raw cannabis out and about in my house.”
The federal government, however, isn’t pleased.
“Frankly, I’m outraged by the Supreme Court,” said Health Minister Rona Ambrose.
“Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada,” she said during a press conference.
“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.”
Arrest of pot baker sparked court challenge
The case stems from Smith’s 2009 arrest in Victoria.
Smith, a baker for the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club, was found with more than 200 cookies and 26 jars of liquids, including cannabis-infused massage oils and lip balms. The baker was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful possession of marijuana.
Owen Smith was caught baking more than 200 pot cookies for the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club in 2009. (CHEK)
The club delivers medical marijuana products to its members, but doesn’t have a licence to produce it.
At his trial, Smith argued that the law under which he was charged was unconstitutional and violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
The British Columbia trial judge agreed and acquitted him. A B.C. Appeal Court also ruled in Smith’s favour, under the principle that no one can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law.
The federal government then appealed that decision to take his case to Canada’s top court. Thursday’s decision affirms Smith’s acquittal.
The Appeal Court had also suspended its declaration for a year to give Parliament time to rewrite the law. The Supreme Court has now deleted that suspension, saying otherwise it would “leave patients without lawful medical treatment and the law and law enforcement in limbo.”
Ambrose said the federal government will fight against the court’s “normalization” of marijuana.
“We will continue to combat it. We will continue our anti-drug strategy, we will target youth with the message that marijuana pot is bad for them,” the minister said. “We’ll continue to work with medical authorities across the country to make sure they’re involved in the message.”
Article source CBC News
Lawyer Kirk Tousaw calls Health Minister Rona Ambrose utterly ignorant about medical cannabis
It’s been a busy day for B.C. lawyer Kirk Tousaw.
He’s been doing many media interviews after winning a landmark marijuana case in the Supreme Court of Canada.
And when he contacted the Georgia Straight, he fielded questions on a range of legal issues ranging from dispensaries to the impact of the ruling on other cases before the courts.
But his most colourful quotes came in response to Health Minister Rona Ambrose’s comment that she’s “outraged” by the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
“I think what’s outrageous is to have a health minister of this country that is utterly ignorant on the topic of medicinal cannabis,” Tousaw declared.
He claimed that Ambrose doesn’t even believe that cannabis is medicine.
This is the case even though she’s responsible for overseeing Canada’s medicinal-cannabis program.
“[She] is busy blaming the courts when she should really be looking at her own office instead of vitriolicly condemning a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision with a bunch of justices that her boss [Stephen Harper] appointed to that court,” Tousaw said. “Maybe go back to the drawing board, listen to patients for a change, and come up with a system that is going to work.”
The case was about legal standing
Much of the media coverage has focused on why the court overturned a federal ban on consuming edible forms of marijuana for medical purposes. But Tousaw emphasized that his client, Owen Smith, achieved more than that.
“It has to do with standing,” Tousaw said. “The Crown suggested that Mr. Smith ought not to be able to challenge these laws because he himself wasn’t a patient.”
Smith had been charged with trafficking for baking cookies with marijuana extracts for a compassion club. In this decision, Tousaw noted, the court reconfirmed a long-standing legal principle.
“If the law is unconstitutional for one person, it’s unconstitutional for every person,” he said. “And no one can be convicted for violating an unconstitutional law. That is a pretty important takeaway.”
Dispensaries could benefit from decision
He also suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling could provide a “legitimate defence” for marijuana dispensaries if they’re charged criminally for selling edible products.
“They’re really stepping into a supply void created by an unconstitutionally restrictive government program,” Tousaw said. “Factually, the Supreme Court [of Canada] has accepted the decisions of the courts below finding that edibles are essentially relatively safe substances. And that they provide patients with treatment options that are necessary, effective, and possibly safer than smoking.”
He added that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling could also have an impact on dispensary regulations being developed by the City of Vancouver.
City still wants ban on cannabis edibles
Meanwhile, the chief medical health officer of Vancouver Coastal Heath, Dr. Patricia Daly, has argued that the city should ban the sale of baked goods containing marijuana. That’s because they haven’t been tested by food inspectors.
Tousaw, however, opposes the city’s proposal to prohibit dispensaries from selling edible products containing cannabis.
“When you have the City of Vancouver talking about an absolute ban on edibles based on sort of fear of harm—fear of harm to health—the factual findings of the Supreme Court of Canada seem to undermine that concern fairly significantly,” he noted.
After today’s ruling was issued, the City of Vancouver issued a statement reiterating staff’s recommendation to ban cannabis in food. The city claimed that “wider availability of these products is causing increased poisonings in children” in the U.S.
The city’s proposed ban on cannabis-laced food products does not apply to the sale of edible oils in sealed containers.
“The sale of oils allows individuals to create their own edibles and the proposed regulations do not compromise the individual’s right to access edible medical marijuana,” the city stated.
Court declaration is significant
Tousaw pointed out that in previous cases the Supreme Court of Canada has given the federal government a one-year reprieve. This occurred perhaps most notably with assisted-suicide and prostitution,
This gave Parliament time to rewrite a law to bring it in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Tousaw said that in today’s cannabis ruling, however, the court did not provide the government with any grace period.
“The decision goes into effect immediately,” he states. “So patients that went to bed last night criminals for possessing cannabis cookies wake up this morning, and they’re no longer criminals. That’s a pretty important step forward because it doesn’t let the Harper government weasel out of complying with this decision.”
Tousaw also noted that the ruling is not confined to the old Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. They were replaced with a new set of regulations in 2013 called the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations.
“It also applies to the MMPR—or really any legislated scheme—because the declaration was in relationship to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not any of the exemption schemes the government has come up with under that act,” Tousaw said. “That has a pretty important effect on the development of future jurisprudence in this area.”
That’s because the ruling stated that sections 4 and 5 of the act “are of no force and effect” with regard to prohibitions on those with medical authorization from possessing cannabis derivatives.
In fact, Tousaw added, it could have a “ripple effect” on other cases before the courts, including those known as Allard and Garber.
The Allard case involves the right of people to grow their own marijuana for medicinal purposes. As the law currently stands, people must buy medicinal cannabis from companies licensed by the federal government and only with a prescription from a medical doctor.
The Garber case deals with non-dried forms of marijuana, including oils and resin, which are not approved under the MMPR.
“The ban on edibles caused harm and prevented the use of essentially safer and more effective treatment options for patients,” Tousaw said. “That’s arbitrary.”
Supreme Court’s medical marijuana ruling ticks another item off the progressive agenda
BRIAN LILLEY REBEL CO-FOUNDER
All hail our robed masters of the Supreme Court!
They’ve ruled that medical marijuana needs to made available in more forms.
Would they do this with any other drug? Would the Supreme Court order the distribution of liquid Viagra?
No, but pot is a progressive agenda item and our all-powerful robed masters in the Court are progressives, too.
Even if you support legalization or decriminalization, you should be worried that the highest court in the land gets to decide drug policy in this country. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.
Video source Rebel Media
Question of the Day: Should Canada’s highest court expand the legal definition of medicinal needs?
Canada’s highest court redefines medical marijuana. A unanimous ruling today now allows patients to use the drug in all forms including brownies, teas and oils. So we hit the streets to see what you think of the legal expansion of medicinal weed.
Video source Rebel Media
Supreme Court Judgments
SCC Case Information: 36059 R. v. Smith Reasons for Judgment: LEXUM
| Judges | McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne |
Excerpt: It is therefore difficult to understand why allowing patients to transform dried marihuana into baking oil would put them at greater risk than permitting them to smoke or vaporize dried marihuana. Moreover, the Crown provided no evidence to suggest that it would. In fact, as noted above, some of the materials filed by the Crown mention oral ingestion of cannabis as a viable alternative to smoking marihuana.
